Post by deforestatedjerry on Apr 9, 2018 5:02:43 GMT
So do we need to locate someone that attends that university to go check it out? I'm sort of surprised if they really let rare film to just be handed out, especially in this day in age where it's not so likely just anyone has a player for these things.
So do we need to locate someone that attends that university to go check it out? I'm sort of surprised if they really let rare film to just be handed out, especially in this day in age where it's not so likely just anyone has a player for these things.
Well, I'd imagine they'd be very specific in terms of who they'll lend it to. Although the institute is almost certainly unaware of the potential value of the film itself. Besides I believe the institute allows suitable candidates to make copies of selected material.
So do we need to locate someone that attends that university to go check it out? I'm sort of surprised if they really let rare film to just be handed out, especially in this day in age where it's not so likely just anyone has a player for these things.
Well, I'd imagine they'd be very specific in terms of who they'll lend it to. Although the institute is almost certainly unaware of the potential value of the film itself. Besides I believe the institute allows suitable candidates to make copies of selected material.
It says "by appointment only", so that combined with that they have it on an actual film reel, not digitized, suggests that you can't leave with it, you can only view it there with their own equipment. I think it'd depend on the library what their policy would be to view these things, whether it'd be just students, students plus people in the community/researchers, or just anyone that would want to view these types of media.
It says "by appointment only", so that combined with that they have it on an actual film reel, not digitized, suggests that you can't leave with it, you can only view it there with their own equipment. I think it'd depend on the library what their policy would be to view these things, whether it'd be just students, students plus people in the community/researchers, or just anyone that would want to view these types of media.
I suppose there's really no way of knowing exactly what they'll allow short of visiting in person and enquiring about it. I suppose I could email the institute and just flat out ask if they wouldn't mind making a copy and sending it my way. I doubt they actually would, but I guess there's no reason not to.
Well, reading through their policies, they seem pretty damn closed off.
"Film Access Policies
In addition to the Kinsey Institute's general collections use policy, please note the following additional policies that apply to the film archive.
The film archive is available for qualified researchers for on-site viewing only. A two-week notice is required for viewing appointments.
In most cases, original prints are not available for viewing. Video access copies are available for many of these titles. For those currently not available on video, patrons may pay for a film to video transfer when copyright restrictions do not apply. The resulting access video copy can be viewed on site and remains the property of the Kinsey Institute.
Films are not loaned out for public or private viewings. In addition, the Kinsey Institute film archive is not a stock footage library and does not provide reproductions of film footage with the exception of some archival footage of Dr. Kinsey and other Institute for Sex Research/Kinsey Institute staff, which is available for special projects.
Use of the film archive is by appointment only. For information or access please contact User Services at libknsy@indiana.edu."
Sounds like it would be near impossible to get that footage out of their hands.
Well, reading through their policies, they seem pretty damn closed off.
"Film Access Policies
In addition to the Kinsey Institute's general collections use policy, please note the following additional policies that apply to the film archive.
The film archive is available for qualified researchers for on-site viewing only. A two-week notice is required for viewing appointments.
In most cases, original prints are not available for viewing. Video access copies are available for many of these titles. For those currently not available on video, patrons may pay for a film to video transfer when copyright restrictions do not apply. The resulting access video copy can be viewed on site and remains the property of the Kinsey Institute.
Films are not loaned out for public or private viewings. In addition, the Kinsey Institute film archive is not a stock footage library and does not provide reproductions of film footage with the exception of some archival footage of Dr. Kinsey and other Institute for Sex Research/Kinsey Institute staff, which is available for special projects.
Use of the film archive is by appointment only. For information or access please contact User Services at libknsy@indiana.edu."
Sounds like it would be near impossible to get that footage out of their hands.
Yeah, we'd technically be researchers, but probably not "qualified" researchers. Not to mention, we wouldn't be able to share it anywhere. We could in theory ask about its history, ex. where did they get it from, what other information do the have on it. They might not have as much of a problem with letting us know that, since we're not saying "hand over this film so we can publish it probably illegally". Worst they'd say is "the donor wishes to remain anonymous" or "our records are incomplete on what this is/all the information we know about it is in the online listing" or something along those lines. Since it's a university library that has a lot of researchers, they might also be more helpful to us, since we're a group that's trying to document and find media so the public can use it.
I got an email back from the institute, their full response reads as follows:
"Dear Jack,
These films have not yet been digitized so we don’t have much information about it. We are currently working with the university’s media digitization and preservation initiative. Film is the most challenging category of materials and we hope to begin the digitization process in 6 to 9 months. Once this film is digitized we can take a look at it to give you an idea.
Best,
Shawn"
Well, 6-9 months is quite the wait, but at least the film being digitized means it won't be lost to physical decomposition. I guess we'll see what they have to say in 6-9 months. In the meantime, I'd suggest we follow vamp1597's idea and try to find as much as we can about the reel's origins. My hunch is that this isn't the only one in the world. I have nothing to back that up, but a hunch is a hunch.
What I can back up is the fact that Hand in Hand Films sold 8mm copies of some of the features they showed at the 55th Street Playhouse. [The Village Voice - March 21, 1974]
Now, trying to hunt down a copy of that brochure mentioned seems like a pretty good place to start. Add to that the fact that the film also seems to go by the title 'Why is Everybody Talking About "Him"'. So far, we've been searching for 'Him', not 'Why is Everybody Talking About "Him"'. Perhaps we've been barking up the wrong tree with the title, looking for it under its original name when we should've been looking for the alternate.
I got an email back from the institute, their full response reads as follows:
"Dear Jack,
These films have not yet been digitized so we don’t have much information about it. We are currently working with the university’s media digitization and preservation initiative. Film is the most challenging category of materials and we hope to begin the digitization process in 6 to 9 months. Once this film is digitized we can take a look at it to give you an idea.
Best,
Shawn"
Well, 6-9 months is quite the wait, but at least the film being digitized means it won't be lost to physical decomposition. I guess we'll see what they have to say in 6-9 months. In the meantime, I'd suggest we follow vamp1597's idea and try to find as much as we can about the reel's origins. My hunch is that this isn't the only one in the world. I have nothing to back that up, but a hunch is a hunch.
What I can back up is the fact that Hand in Hand Films sold 8mm copies of some of the features they showed at the 55th Street Playhouse. [The Village Voice - March 21, 1974]
Now, trying to hunt down a copy of that brochure mentioned seems like a pretty good place to start. Add to that the fact that the film also seems to go by the title 'Why is Everybody Talking About "Him"'. So far, we've been searching for 'Him', not 'Why is Everybody Talking About "Him"'. Perhaps we've been barking up the wrong tree with the title, looking for it under its original name when we should've been looking for the alternate.
I'm thinking it's not an actual "alternate" title, but is a tagline that might have been used because it appeared in that segment and is a way to describe whatever's there. The entire entry itself is untitled, so it'd wouldn't be so out there. Although something just popped into my head, maybe it's a news segment or documentary or something along those lines? It's how it was advertised, so they might be trying to answer the question? That is, assuming it's related at all to this film. As for origins, did you ask them for information on how they acquired the reel? It could be some sort of lead if they're willing/able to tell us.
I got an email back from the institute, their full response reads as follows:
"Dear Jack,
These films have not yet been digitized so we don’t have much information about it. We are currently working with the university’s media digitization and preservation initiative. Film is the most challenging category of materials and we hope to begin the digitization process in 6 to 9 months. Once this film is digitized we can take a look at it to give you an idea.
Best,
Shawn"
Well, 6-9 months is quite the wait, but at least the film being digitized means it won't be lost to physical decomposition. I guess we'll see what they have to say in 6-9 months. In the meantime, I'd suggest we follow vamp1597's idea and try to find as much as we can about the reel's origins. My hunch is that this isn't the only one in the world. I have nothing to back that up, but a hunch is a hunch.
What I can back up is the fact that Hand in Hand Films sold 8mm copies of some of the features they showed at the 55th Street Playhouse. [The Village Voice - March 21, 1974]
Now, trying to hunt down a copy of that brochure mentioned seems like a pretty good place to start. Add to that the fact that the film also seems to go by the title 'Why is Everybody Talking About "Him"'. So far, we've been searching for 'Him', not 'Why is Everybody Talking About "Him"'. Perhaps we've been barking up the wrong tree with the title, looking for it under its original name when we should've been looking for the alternate.
I'm thinking it's not an actual "alternate" title, but is a tagline that might have been used because it appeared in that segment and is a way to describe whatever's there. The entire entry itself is untitled, so it'd wouldn't be so out there. Although something just popped into my head, maybe it's a news segment or documentary or something along those lines? It's how it was advertised, so they might be trying to answer the question? That is, assuming it's related at all to this film. As for origins, did you ask them for information on how they acquired the reel? It could be some sort of lead if they're willing/able to tell us.
I suppose it could be a news-style segment in relation to it, but I'd doubt it due to the fact that all the other shorts seem to be edited down from features. Having something like that thrown onto the beginning, and for a film as obscure this this one, strikes me as unlikely.
I did request that they give any additional information they could about the reel, but... Well, I didn't leave anything out of their email. If they don't get back to me within 10-months, rest assured that I'll be getting back to them.
Looking through the list of films on the reel, the latest one I've been able to identify is 'Times Square Strip' apparently released in 1982. So that sets something of a cut-off date for when the reel was made. Hand in Hand apparently went out of business in 1991. So assuming they produced the reel themselves, that's a margin of 9-years. It's not much to go off, but I guess it's a start.
It is possible that we are entirely barking up the wrong tree here, the reel might not contain anything from the film. But personally, there isn't a doubt in my mind that it does. The Hand in Hand Films credit, the name nearly identical to the tagline, but what really got me was how the name is typed out. There's a single quotation mark after the word 'him'. There aren't any other quotation marks in that sentence, or any of the others. BUT in the Village Voice ad, notice that "Him" is in quotes. It's such a small detail, but that really is the clincher for me.
I'm thinking it's not an actual "alternate" title, but is a tagline that might have been used because it appeared in that segment and is a way to describe whatever's there. The entire entry itself is untitled, so it'd wouldn't be so out there. Although something just popped into my head, maybe it's a news segment or documentary or something along those lines? It's how it was advertised, so they might be trying to answer the question? That is, assuming it's related at all to this film. As for origins, did you ask them for information on how they acquired the reel? It could be some sort of lead if they're willing/able to tell us.
I suppose it could be a news-style segment in relation to it, but I'd doubt it due to the fact that all the other shorts seem to be edited down from features. Having something like that thrown onto the beginning, and for a film as obscure this this one, strikes me as unlikely.
I did request that they give any additional information they could about the reel, but... Well, I didn't leave anything out of their email. If they don't get back to me within 10-months, rest assured that I'll be getting back to them.
Looking through the list of films on the reel, the latest one I've been able to identify is 'Times Square Strip' apparently released in 1982. So that sets something of a cut-off date for when the reel was made. Hand in Hand apparently went out of business in 1991. So assuming they produced the reel themselves, that's a margin of 9-years. It's not much to go off, but I guess it's a start.
It is possible that we are entirely barking up the wrong tree here, the reel might not contain anything from the film. But personally, there isn't a doubt in my mind that it does. The Hand in Hand Films credit, the name nearly identical to the tagline, but what really got me was how the name is typed out. There's a single quotation mark after the word 'him'. There aren't any other quotation marks in that sentence, or any of the others. BUT in the Village Voice ad, notice that "Him" is in quotes. It's such a small detail, but that really is the clincher for me.
The time span is actually a good lead. Not sure how much these will have years (again, just looking at how much information is available for this one listing, and they likely didn't have anything else which is why they didn't address that part), but it's good to look into. Actually, now that I'm thinking, maybe it's a promo reel, and that's why they're the short films and the tagline. As for the quotation mark, that's probably a typo. Generally, libraries will share their records with each other/be provided with it by whoever is publishing or distributing the media, so when they get new stock, they can just use someone else's to save on work and limit inconsistencies between libraries. So, if they get something that is rare and does not have any records elsewhere, then the record has to be made manually. Since it's just the one library using it, rather than something that's passed around very commonly, and something that might not be viewed as much, it's likely that no one's noticed/cared all that much to fix it. And yay for getting to wait almost a year for this. Then again, I think we have time to wait, it's not too urgent, it's been sitting around for this long.
I suppose it could be a news-style segment in relation to it, but I'd doubt it due to the fact that all the other shorts seem to be edited down from features. Having something like that thrown onto the beginning, and for a film as obscure this this one, strikes me as unlikely.
I did request that they give any additional information they could about the reel, but... Well, I didn't leave anything out of their email. If they don't get back to me within 10-months, rest assured that I'll be getting back to them.
Looking through the list of films on the reel, the latest one I've been able to identify is 'Times Square Strip' apparently released in 1982. So that sets something of a cut-off date for when the reel was made. Hand in Hand apparently went out of business in 1991. So assuming they produced the reel themselves, that's a margin of 9-years. It's not much to go off, but I guess it's a start.
It is possible that we are entirely barking up the wrong tree here, the reel might not contain anything from the film. But personally, there isn't a doubt in my mind that it does. The Hand in Hand Films credit, the name nearly identical to the tagline, but what really got me was how the name is typed out. There's a single quotation mark after the word 'him'. There aren't any other quotation marks in that sentence, or any of the others. BUT in the Village Voice ad, notice that "Him" is in quotes. It's such a small detail, but that really is the clincher for me.
The time span is actually a good lead. Not sure how much these will have years (again, just looking at how much information is available for this one listing, and they likely didn't have anything else which is why they didn't address that part), but it's good to look into. Actually, now that I'm thinking, maybe it's a promo reel, and that's why they're the short films and the tagline. As for the quotation mark, that's probably a typo. Generally, libraries will share their records with each other/be provided with it by whoever is publishing or distributing the media, so when they get new stock, they can just use someone else's to save on work and limit inconsistencies between libraries. So, if they get something that is rare and does not have any records elsewhere, then the record has to be made manually. Since it's just the one library using it, rather than something that's passed around very commonly, and something that might not be viewed as much, it's likely that no one's noticed/cared all that much to fix it.
I agree the typo theory is possible. It's possible that the addition of the quotation mark is a typo. Although it's equally possible that it's a typo because they left out the first quotation mark. Much like everything else, no real way of knowing, but it's still enough evidence to convince little old me. Although maybe I'm just guilty of wishful thinking.
As you say, a promo reel makes sense. My two main theory's are either that or a mail order thing. Although a promo reel strikes me as perhaps the most likely of the two. With the dawn of VHS in the late-70s and early-80s, who was still releasing this sorta thing on 16mm? I suppose it's possible that it could just be some homemade highlight reel from some collector or projectionist. I've heard plenty of anecdotes of projectionists cutting out "the good parts" from film reels to take home as souvenirs.
The time span is actually a good lead. Not sure how much these will have years (again, just looking at how much information is available for this one listing, and they likely didn't have anything else which is why they didn't address that part), but it's good to look into. Actually, now that I'm thinking, maybe it's a promo reel, and that's why they're the short films and the tagline. As for the quotation mark, that's probably a typo. Generally, libraries will share their records with each other/be provided with it by whoever is publishing or distributing the media, so when they get new stock, they can just use someone else's to save on work and limit inconsistencies between libraries. So, if they get something that is rare and does not have any records elsewhere, then the record has to be made manually. Since it's just the one library using it, rather than something that's passed around very commonly, and something that might not be viewed as much, it's likely that no one's noticed/cared all that much to fix it.
I agree the typo theory is possible. It's possible that the addition of the quotation mark is a typo. Although it's equally possible that it's a typo because they left out the first quotation mark. Much like everything else, no real way of knowing, but it's still enough evidence to convince little old me. Although maybe I'm just guilty of wishful thinking.
As you say, a promo reel makes sense. My two main theory's are either that or a mail order thing. Although a promo reel strikes me as perhaps the most likely of the two. With the dawn of VHS in the late-70s and early-80s, who was still releasing this sorta thing on 16mm? I suppose it's possible that it could just be some homemade highlight reel from some collector or projectionist. I've heard plenty of anecdotes of projectionists cutting out "the good parts" from film reels to take home as souvenirs.
Could have been a phasing out sort of situation, like with VHS's to DVD's. But also, I think it'd be kind of bizarre to take highlights from different (adult) films that were brought as souvenirs and cutting them together. Having multiple ones, sure, but (unless it was later on just to save space) it'd be weird to put them on one reel. Not to mention, if it was for public consumption, it's pornographic films. People generally just don't take one part of it (unless I somehow know even less about porn than I think I do). It seems like they might have been used as a pitch for a company, something traded within the industry.
"4 ARE ARRESTED IN FILM SEIZURE" - The New York Times, October 1, 1970
"Judge Rosenberg set Oct. for a hearing in the case of the distributor, Saul Shiffrin of Livingston, N. J., and the managers, Thomas DeGraffenreid of the Evergreen Theater at 55 East 11th Street, Henry Young of the Lido East at 211 East 59th Street and Chung Louis of the 55th Street Playhouse at 154 West 55th Street."
I can't say I've come across the name Chung Louis before in relation to the Playhouse. It is strikingly similar to 'Louie', isn't it. Perhaps Ed D. Louie was a pseudonym after all. Perhaps Ed D. Louie and Chung Louis were relatives. Perhaps they're two unrelated people. Still, an interesting little tidbit.
I've done some looking into the films on the Kinsey re-- Sorry, print. I managed to identify most of them with relative certainty. There were only three I couldn't identify whatsoever, including the one we're interested in. My guess is that those three are either under alternate titles or just flat out mistitled. I've put together a table of each of the films, including their year of release, directors, distributors, and studios. You can find it at this link.